The Apocalypse Will Brighten Your Day

I am generally made a little uncomfortable by religious answers to mundane events/problems. Especially when they are announced in that unnerving tone of utter, unshakeable certainty. (Images of The Children of the Damned flit across my mind's eye. Like I said: Unnerving).

For instance, I was trawling the interweb and came across the following response to a youtube posting mentioning the recent tsunamis. In the midst of the more mundane posts responding to the piece was this:  

"The reason for these earthquakes is because the tribulation is coming soon.
MARK 13:5-8
5Jesus said to them: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 6Many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and will deceive many. 7When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 8Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains." 

Such prophesy is astounding in its accuracy, isn't it? What? You mean they knew even back then that, in the future, there would be wars and natural disasters and people claiming to know all the answers?? Woah, dude...! 
I almost bothered to post a reply to it but, in a moment of uncharacteristic restraint, I chose not to enter into a crock of pointless blah blah with someone so obviously detached from the real world. I would never get that time back. 
Of course, the whole point is that, if people continue to announce the 'Nigh-ness' of the End of the World daily, and for long enough, one day they will be quite right. On the down-side, it's unlikely they will be around to say "Nyaa nyaa! Told you so! See? We were right all along!"
Shame, really.

One important piece of advice I was given many years ago when I began working in a psychiatric day hospital was, "Don't try to challenge delusions. It's potentially dangerous and, more to the point, it's a complete waste of time."

Exemplum:
Stage 1.
"Why do you accept The Bible as the word of God?"
"Because it says so."
"Where does it say that?"
"In The Bible, of course."
"But, how do you know that's true?"
"Because it's the word of God."
"How do you know..." etc, etc, ad inf...

Stage 2.
Occurs when logical, evidence-based  discussion grind to an inevitable halt:

"Given that we've established that there exists no viable evidence to substantiate your claims, why do you still believe as you do?"
"Because I have faith."

At this point, unless one particularly enjoys the feeling of repeated contact between brick and forehead, one needs to step away avoiding unnecessary sudden movements.
 
The thing about any atheist vs theist debate is that it is unlikely in the extreme that anyone changes sides. There are, of course, celebrated cases of noted non-theists having Damascus-style conversions while, at the same time, overt religious worship is, worldwide, becoming a practice more and more associated with the word 'quaint' or 'cooky' (and quite commonly, 'nutter').
Religions no longer have the immense power and influence that they once had. This is a good thing. However, the world is still a troubling place and facing reality a more frightening concept to embrace.
We all have our shelters from the trials of the outside world. Maybe, I'm getting softer in my old age, but I should really be more charitable to those who choose surrender to religious doctrine as theirs.

It took me a while to realise that, when meaningless, religious tripe is spouted at me, the hackles I feel are not rising because of any dislike of the 'spouter', but anger at the Croesus-rich institutions that corrupted this otherwise (possibly) worthwhile human being into a disseminator of their own flawed doctrine; one of many who exist simply to justify the institution in question's continued, but, otherwise, anachronistic, existence. 

This gives me to think that I should, instead, feel pity for the 'spouter'. However, that makes me feel that I am being patronising to someone with sincere, but naive, beliefs - which is, ironically, exactly how they are acting towards me. And I hate: 1. The thought of being patronising and, 2. That I might be likened to them.
Which makes me angry...

Ho hum...

Navel Gazing

The M.E. fairy has been visiting a lot recently. Not just visiting but practically kicking the front door in and laying into me with a riot stick and a taser. Hence a recent decline in my usual bon vivacity; my all's-well-with-the-world 'happy-go-lucky-ness'.
 

I'm not someone who is prone to a great deal of profound introspection.
Actually, that's not entirely true. To be more precise: I'm not one to admit to indulging in a great deal of profound introspection. Shallow introspection, yes. But I avoid the profound stuff. Truth be told, and after some tentative and, maybe, ankle-deep pondering, I think I am slightly worried about what I might find down there in the bowels of my soul (my apologies for that image, btw).


I've done one or two pretty appalling things in my life. I've been a nasty piece of work and been driven by some questionable motives at times. On a number of occasions, I've been downright despicable and displayed an alarming lack of self-control. I'm not kidding. 
This may come as a shock to some but, even now, I can still be impulsive, lazy, self-serving, reckless, spiteful, curmudgeonly and bloody intolerant. (If I've missed anything, please feel free to add).
(Reading that back, it seems a little tongue in cheek, but I am actually trying to be brutally honest about myself).
 

Almost from birth, we learn from our environment. We take cues from the significant people around us and significant experiences in our lives and from these cues we formulate a set of personal rules. These rules govern how we think and act. With time and enough reinforcement, these rules become hardwired into that part of us that governs our behaviour.
 

ie. If I do x, then y is likely to occur; if I do z, then y won't occur, which is a more comfortable/beneficial outcome for me. Therefore, when presented with an x or z choice, I'm going to go for z in future.
I know this is a great oversimplification of a complex process but, it captures the basics, I think.
 

Now I've forgotten where I was going with this... Introspection. That was it.
 

One of my 'rules' is that focussing on yourself is wrong. It is selfish to think of your own needs when there are so many others who far worse off that you and whose needs are greater than your own petty concerns. Another is that x = expressing my upset/anger, y = getting 'A Good Hiding' and z = Erosion of self-worth, but a less violent immediate future.

Once set down, these rules are hard to change and, naturally, inform our adult dealings with the world.
 

Even writing this now, I feel an unease because the family I was raised in would accuse me of using 'pop-psychology' to indulge in self-pity and trying to blame others for my 'problems'.

Then, sometimes, the rules kick in and part of me feels they are right. I feel ashamed for focussing on my painful upbringing and the interpersonal dynamics of it when I should really be apologising for being such a 'problem' child and giving them so much grief.
 

One or two readers might remember all this stuff from a year or two ago when I finally got up the courage to challenge The Family Creed. Shortly after that, my father was diagnosed with cancer and died just over a year later. I know certain members of the family want (need?) to link my 'rebellion' to dad's illness. In a letter, my dad even managed a subtle side-swipe to that effect. He mentioned that the many stresses of the year preceding his diagnosis were bound to lower his immune responses, after all.


My rules are such that, faced with a verbal argument, I tend to clam up and seethe rather than respond. The rules tell me that fighting my corner leads to far more painful consequences than just shutting up and taking the blows. I can always compose a cutting response later, yes?
 

I've shot off on a strange and uncomfortable tangent here. I think I'll take a break and maybe carry on with this later.